Military Review

"Five-minute ships": "top secret" information from completely unclassified sources

216
General condition of the problem


In recent years, much attention has been paid to the development and modernization of the naval forces of Russia on the part of the country's leadership. At the same time, and this should be discussed frankly, the construction of new warships is carried out using outdated technologies that call into question the very concept of combat readiness of a whole type of armed forces. Professional sailors, on this statement, may notice that the author, as a private, uninformed person, using only open sources of information, exaggerates everything and, trying to earn cheap credibility of a superficial naval expert, uses laconic, unsubstantiated phrases. Nevertheless, let’s calmly figure out everything in order, armed only with incontrovertible facts and logical reflections. Moreover, everything set forth here was at one time the subject of repeated critical discussions of the author with military specialists who have many years of experience in various military posts on surface ships of the Russian naval fleet.

So, statement number one, which is obvious and related to the fact that in most of the most developed countries of the world there is a widespread introduction of new systems in the fleets weapons, including anti-ship missiles (PKR), with enhanced combat performance. The appearance of such missiles as means of air attack on surface objects represents a real threat, since they have a very small effective area of ​​dispersion (about 0,1-0,01 sq. M), and their flight takes place at ultra-low altitudes with a sufficiently high speed; in the final part of the trajectory, they, in addition, perform complex maneuvering in both vertical and horizontal planes. All this creates significant difficulties in combating them and necessitates the immediate deployment of research and developmental works to create sufficiently reliable means of protection against this type of weapon.

At the same time, and this is an irrefutable statement number two, indicating that, within the concept of the echeloned air defense, airborne formations and groups, when the nearest zone of the line of defense of any ship (extending from 300 m to 4 km) falls on 1-th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, up to 30% of all targets involved in a raid on a ship, are considered to be an important means of hitting these targets with automated short-range anti-aircraft artillery systems (ZAK) with short-range artillery kali guns. rum from 20 to 40 mm and autonomous fire control systems. The use of such ZAK is all the more justified in a real combat situation, when, in the process of conducting a fleeting sea battle, a potential enemy will carry out massive rocket attacks on the ship with small time intervals between the rockets in the salvo and from different course angles, including also appearing "from behind." No less remarkable is the fact that in recent years (to which particular attention was paid at the international maritime exhibitions “Euronaval-2012” and “Euronaval-2014”) against the background of constantly increasing threats to ships in the near zone (such as: defeat of crews of ships small arms from small-sized, high-speed ships, the bombing of ships with powerful improvised explosive devices mounted on boats - “kamikazes”); the world’s shipments of remotely-controlled combat modules — relatively new sa sea weapons systems.

An analysis of the experience of combat operations at sea, for example, during the Anglo-Argentine conflict in the Falklands (Malvinas) Islands in April-June 1982, shows that small-bore rapid-fire artillery capable of creating a tight fire curtain on the course of the air target in the shortest time may, in fact, be in a number of cases a more effective means of combating naval targets than an anti-aircraft missile defense system. The high rate of fire and the relatively short response time of modern ZAK short-range (up to 5000 shots / min and no more than 3-5 seconds, respectively) make it possible to achieve very good results in repelling attacks from the enemy, seeking to destroy the combat surface ship.

In this connection, a completely natural question arises: does the modern Russian ZAK, which are deployed on surface warships of the Russian Navy, possess all the above qualities? Unfortunately, this too should be stated as an indisputable fact that practically no warship of the Russian Navy, both in service and being put into operation, does not possess these qualities. Worse, the developed prospective warships are supplied with deliberately outdated, ineffective and, in fact, useless in combat conditions sea ZAK. At the beginning of the last century, British sailors used to say about such ships “Five minutes ships” (ie, “five-minute ships”, i.e., such ships whose sinking should take no more than five minutes). The picture is, of course, unsightly and even somewhat depressing. Nevertheless, this is the 100% prospect of the existence of the Russian military surface fleet in the coming years. If, of course, nothing is done, or, wandering in the dark, to demonstrate cosmetic, meaningless half-measures, or rather, actively simulate a violent activity with zero end result. Than now, to one degree or another successfully, representatives of the country's defense industry are involved in the development and production of naval anti-aircraft artillery complexes. This, first of all, is about the OJSC “Instrument Engineering Design Bureau” (KBP), the city of Tula, JSC “Tochmash named after A.E. Nudelman ", Moscow, and PO" Tulamashzavod ", Tula.

A new way of "mastering" the budget with the old methods

After all, no matter how unpleasant it is to realize, a foreign ZAK “Goalkeeper” is now “running the ball” in the world’s oceans (Photo # 1), developed and put into service in NATO countries back in the 80s of the last century and having one of the the most powerful and most accurate to date 30-mm anti-aircraft gun. And instead of developing something worthy of the “Goalkeeper” as opposed to “NATO members” and trying to surpass them in this field, our leading weapon enterprise KBP named after AG Shipunova didn’t find anything better than for decades (starting from 1994) to engage in “combat toys” of the anti-aircraft-artillery complex (SCRA) type “Armor - С1”, popular with the first persons in the Russian government and selling very well to third world countries , but never accepted by the Land Forces of the country as the main ground defense system of the near zone. At the same time, the unique automatic gun AO-18, designed at the time by V.P. Gryazev and A.G. Shipunov has not improved since the end of 70-s of the last century (except for increasing the length of barrels in the AO-18K gun from 54 to 80 calibers), being in oblivion and discrediting its patriarchal nature, quite good in its essence. 630M. Designers - weapons at the same time, already some year in a row, are only concerned about which of the new anti-aircraft missiles to hang on the shoulders of the next “raw”, now sea, PANA-M SARK (Photo No. 2), which, as it turns out , entered service with the Russian Navy already in 2016 year! At the same time, I just want to ask the developers of this “miracle of technology”, and where, dear gentlemen, is your report about conducting serious naval, and not land tests of this complex? They, as always in such cases, will answer you: this is a closed topic, but you do not have the appropriate access. I have experienced similar experiences ...


Picture No. 1. ZAK "Goalkeeper"


"Five-minute ships": "top secret" information from completely unclassified sources
Picture No. 2. CRAFT "Pantsir-M"


Please think about this profanation: the tactical and technical characteristics of the ultra-modern (as the developers claim!) Sea SAME are based on the results of tests under the conditions of the Kapustin Yar ground test range !? And where is the impact on the work of the ship’s radar system (radar) of the so-called underlying surface, in other words, water? After all, it is 3-5 times stronger than on earth, reflects radio waves (at sea, the reflection coefficient is equal to one, and on land, in the same Kapustin Yar -0,2-0,3). There are also purely physical problems. Specialists in maritime weapons know that the low altitude of modern RCC (no more than 3-5 m from the sea surface) leads to the fact that almost the entire route of radiated microwave radar passes through the zone near the water. The inverse (that is, increasing with height) distributions of humidity and air temperature that occur in it under certain weather conditions lead to the well-known phenomenon of anomalous radio wave propagation disturbing the normal operation of the radar. How can these nuances be taken into account and worked out under the conditions of a stationary earth surface, for example, the surface of a steppe test site, is unclear? And everything that happens, oddly enough it sounds, is carried out with the tacit consent or connivance of representatives of the Ministry of Defense and members of the Expert Council under the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. Their vigilance and professionalism, apparently, were euthanized by the fact that for the first time in the Pantsire-M, a passive phased-array antenna (PAR) was used as a radar system on the sea. The presence of this complex in the complex seems to the author to be quite redundant and unreasonable Since, along with the advantages inherent in the radar under discussion, it also has a very significant disadvantage, primarily due to the narrow sector of the review, in which it is inferior to both parabolic and slot antennas. Of course, from the point of view of firing naval targets with anti-aircraft missiles, the use of radar with phased array is certainly advisable. And what about the artillery component of the Pantsir-M complex, for which, exactly, the review sector is not a secondary factor, but a decisive factor?

Is it not for this reason that the modernization of ZAK Goalkeeper, currently being carried out by the Netherlands Ministry of Defense and the French corporation Thales, does not involve making any changes to the radar unit, represented by the classic Cassegrain antenna, and does not affect in any way the existing slit antenna. In the course of the modernization, it is assumed that the existing capabilities of the “Goalkeeper” (which, in terms of accuracy of fire, already surpasses the Russian ZAK AK - 630М by almost 3,5 times!) Will be significantly expanded due to the use of a more modern electronic-optical tracking system that the French, by the level of capabilities of tracking systems of this type, are now superior to everyone in the world!) and the introduction of new control and combat algorithms. That is, at that time, while the representatives of the Russian defense industry, together with the 1 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, continue to endlessly exploit the outdated idea of ​​the SAIL, the depravity of which was recognized by marine experts all over the world as early as the 70-80 years of the last century, our opponents slowly, logically meaningfully extend the life to 2025, also in general, the patriarchal ZAK “Goalkeeper”, getting the opportunity with its help to intercept the new generation supersonic anti-ship missiles and use it against speedy malomer s surface vessels, which is particularly important in recent years as against Russian warships carried out a provocation by the Turkish marine craft. Now imagine the following situation, even for a second: on the spot of the Turkish seiner who maliciously attacked 13 in December 2015 in the Aegean Sea sentry ship "Sharp-witted", there could well be a similar high-speed small-sized vessel armed with a whole set of anti-ship weapons used instantly (within fractions of seconds!), and disappearing from the zone of probable damage at a speed of more than 50 nodes. Possible consequences for our warship would be catastrophic ...

The idea of ​​the SIDECUS, rooted in special terminology at the suggestion of the respected Tula designer Vasily Petrovich Gryazev, passed over the relay to the fleet from the constructive-layout scheme of the famous "Tunguska" and invariably operated exclusively by Soviet and then Russian armaments for almost three decades. It is, unfortunately, an anachronism, inherited from the twentieth century. The concept of a combat module “with two suitcases” (transport and launch containers with anti-aircraft missiles and cannons, separated for some reason from each other by 3 m in the horizon), which is not amenable to technical understanding in the 21st century both in terms of logic and from the point of view of the tactics of conducting a modern transient sea battle, in fact, it slows down the normal development and improvement of promising domestic ZAK, in fact, necessary for our modern surface warships. This idea with spaced trunks at the household level can be particularly clearly demonstrated by the example of a hunter who would have ventured to hunt a wild boar or, even more so, a double-barreled bear, whose trunks were originally separated from one another. a strange whim centimeters, commercials, at thirty - forty. The question is: will the hunter return home with loot? The answer is unequivocal: both the wild boar and the bear can sleep peacefully ... For reference: from January 2016, according to information from KB Nochmann's Tochmash, the next state tests of Palma began (Photo No. 3), although according to the reports of the “Voennoe obozrenie” Internet portal, www.topwar.ru, from 21 in March 2014, it is known that the previous state tests of the Palash CRAFT (this is the modified name of the same Palma CRAW) were “successfully failed” in the 2007 year, and he was then accepted only in trial operation ...


Picture No. 3. CRAFT "Palma"


The bleak prospects of the Russian Navy

Thus, from the previous narration, we found out that our probable opponents, as it turns out, with much more attention and perseverance than we could expect from them, relate to the improvement of anti-aircraft combat weapons in the near-air defense zones of their surface ships.

And now we will discuss how this business is organized here, on the Russian navy? Yes, almost nothing. Surface warships are designed, built and leave from the stocks without any consideration of the organization of the layered air defense of the near zone of the ship. Moreover, it is not typical for individual instances of military surface watercraft, but is present almost everywhere. It seems that the development and combat equipment of the ships were engaged not by experts, but by randomly invited amateurs. Not to be unfounded, consider, for example, the head corvette of the 20380 project.



Picture No. 4. The main corvette project 20380 "guarding"

Steregushchy (Photo No. 4), designed by St. Petersburg Almaz Central Securities and Design Bureau. According to his general designer, Alexander Shlyakhtenko, "This is a multi-purpose patrol ship with unique technical parameters and weapons for conducting operations on the high seas." How much is this score true? Let's try to analyze the information on this account, published in the open press. So, the air defense and missile defense (PRO) of the corvette is provided by the DIRT 3М87 "Dirk" (Photo No. 5) in the bow of the ship.


Picture No. 5. The Kortik-M ZRAK and two 30-mm anti-aircraft artillery systems AK-630М (Photo No. 6) in the stern of the ship



Picture No. 6. ZAK "AK-630M"


Corvette, the main purpose of which is to conduct operations on the high seas, even in the near-sea zone, in the event of the outbreak of clashes, will have to operate in the conditions of the overwhelming superiority of the potential enemy in the air and rely only on its own air defense and anti-missile systems. And what do we have to ensure that the situation with the 20380 Corvette does not repeat the situation, similar to that which occurred on May 17 in the Persian Gulf with the American frigate "Stark" when the Iraqi Fighter "Mirage" F-1987 struck the warship from the bow in connection with the fact that the 1-mm ZAK "Vulcan - Phalanx" was installed only at the stern of surface facilities? Yes, to practically defend against anti-ship missiles either from the stern or from the bow, both the head corvette Steregushchy and his associates on the 20 Soobrazitelny project (Photo No. 20380), Boiky and Stable (note newest corvettes!)


Picture No. 7. Corvette Project 20380 "Savvy"

cannot under any circumstances, since AK-630М and its Vympel radar are spaced apart on 10-15 m (for ZAK Golpiper, for example, the radar is on the same platform with the complex, on the aiming axis, 10 cm! From the barrel block), which directly affects the accuracy of determining the angular coordinate system of the complex, and, consequently, the accuracy of its shooting at the target. Especially a lot of questions are caused by Photo No. 7-1, on which ZAK is placed, or rather, hidden in some onboard recess, which, apparently, should make it invisible to the enemy.


Picture No. 7-1. ZAK AK-630M in the shelter in the ship's hull


And for what it is necessary, I just want to ask the designers of this “unique technical solution”? After all, the main idea of ​​the existence of any ZAK in a battle is to die, save a battle ship from defeat. How will the ship be saved by an artillery complex with a limited sector of shelling, moreover, “hidden” in an onboard recess?

The accuracy of the AK-630M complex, or rather the circular probable deviation (CVT) of its projectiles according to the estimated information given in the special literature, is within the limits of 4,0-4,28 mRD. This means that at a range of 1500 m, the actual random spread of shells from the aiming point will be from 4 to 4,28 m, and the scattering area will reach 40 square meters. In a word, for every 1000 shots fired from ZAK, no more than 0,1-x shells will fall into the midsection (the cross section of the body moving in water or air) with the maximum area of ​​4 square meters. On the other hand, in order to launch 1000 shells on a target, a time of at least 12 seconds is necessary (at a rate of fire of the order of 5000 rounds per minute). During this time interval, even the slowest subsonic CRP of the sample of the end of 60-x - the beginning of 70-s of the last century will fly no less than 3000 meters. And all this despite the fact that here we are not discussing in detail the speed of the reaction of the complex to the emerging sea targets. On the effectiveness of the DIRECT "Dirk" can not argue at all, it is below even the estimates of the complex AK-630M: think of the boar, the bear and the hunter with its fake double-barreled bar mentioned above. At the same time, the fact that the Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered missile cruiser, which is currently undergoing repair and deep modernization, assessed by the Army Herald website (www.army-news. Ru) from 07.04.2014, cannot but be regretted and regretted. In 50 billion rubles, it is supposed to place as the air defense complex of the near zone as many as six KORtik-M PSRAK. Comments, as they say, are superfluous ...

Unfortunately, a similar situation is observed across the entire line of ships commissioned in the last 10-12 years. Again, in order not to be accused of bias, we now turn our eyes to the frigate of the project 22350 (Photo No. 8) or


Picture No. 8. Frigate project 22350


small artillery ships of the 21630 project based on the Caspian Sea and which became famous after the 7 October 2015 of the missile attacks on Syria (Photo No. 9 and 10). The air defense and missile defense of the near zone on the ships of these projects is not just ineffective, it is, in fact, completely absent ...


Picture No. 9. Small Artillery Ship (MAK) Project 21630


Picture No. 10. MAK project 21630 (view from the stern)


It is interesting, in this regard, to discuss how things are in this regard on the surface ships of our probable friends and equally probable enemies? Let's start with the ships of the NATO bloc (Photo No. 11).


Photo No. 11. Invincible Avian carrier


It is a light aircraft carrier of the British Navy Invincible. Notice how the 30-mm ZAK "Goalkeeper" and aircraft carrier anti-aircraft missiles are placed on the deck of a warship XNUMX-mm ZAK: combat means to the bow of the ship. In addition, anti-aircraft missiles placed behind ZAK, without interfering with artillery, have their own, independent sector of fire.

Now compare how much the NATO members are losing to them, in this regard, the “Chinese comrades”, who, in fact, put an not entirely successful “Goalkeeper” clone ZAK H / JP-14 on their squadron “Liuzhou”, positioning it along the contour of the ship the same as it was done in Russia. That is, how God put his soul (Photo number 12).


Picture No. 12. Chinese destroyer "Liuzhou"


Yes, they, of course, diligently study and collect, if possible, all the best around the world, but in this case not only imagination should work, but also something else ... This also applies to ZAK, which they design independently. Take at least their projects ZAK Type 730 or Type 1130 (Photo 13),


Photo № 13.Chinese ZAK Type 1130


in which the features of the American - Dutch “Goalkeeper” are clearly visible, but that’s what ends up, because, all the same, you cannot literally follow the Chinese saying “If you can copy the Master exactly, then you yourself are the Master”. In an effort to increase the firepower of Type 1130, the Chinese, having assembled 11 trunks into a single block (mind bogus!), As it turns out, violated the fundamental principle of the universe, the principle of the "golden section", which sounds like this: "The best is the enemy of the good" Therefore, Type 1130, this monster, the Chinese weapons and decided to install, apparently, only on its not very successful, and so far the only aircraft carrier "Liaoning". There are three of them there and at the same time they overheat when shooting.

Thus, finally, one disappointing conclusion can be made concerning the next, with the pomp, ongoing modernization of the Russian navy: we wanted it better - but it turned out as always. Are the new Tsushima and Port Arthur really needed to finally remember the testament of the unforgettable Admiral Stepan Osipovich Makarov, calling to his descendants, you and me, from the stele of the monument in Kronstadt - “Remember the war!”. Never belittle your opponent, no matter who he is, and always be ready not only to deal a crushing blow to the foe, but also to effectively reflect a possible answer on his part.

Based on the foregoing, it seems appropriate to implement a set of the following urgent measures:

1. It is necessary, and as soon as possible maximum within the next one and a half - two years, to rethink the whole scheme of the organization of air defense / missile defense of each of the surface ships, both in combat formation and designed and under construction, with the issuance of specific, rather than contrived, recommendations on its change in accordance with the requirements dictated by the realities of today, when, together with the elaboration of the issue of creating a layered defense of a combat surface ship, the dilemma of breeding into different zones of responsibility will naturally be resolved and in different profiles of the watercraft of its artillery - zenith and rocket - zenith components. As we observed above, when discussing the structure of an air defense system and a missile defense system in the near zone of the English light aircraft carrier Invincible.

2. In a short time (no more than 5-7 years) to design and adopt a completely new naval anti-aircraft artillery complex, which has unique combat characteristics, namely:
- instantaneous response (no more than 0,1-0,3 seconds) to the appearance and shelling of emerging naval targets threatening a combat surface ship;
- accuracy of anti-aircraft guns with a KVO no more than 0,05 mRad.

3. The designed complex, as a rule, must be unified with ZAK AK-630М (AK-630М1-2 "Duet") according to their installation on surface warships. The radar guidance system and control of the complex, as expected, will be located on the axis of aiming, on a single platform, in the immediate vicinity of the block trunks. A laser triaxial gyroscope with fiber-optic circuits should be installed on the platform seat of the complex, which will eliminate problems when specifying the angular coordinate system ZAK when carrying out combat shooting at sea targets.

4. It is assumed that the designed ZAK has an autonomous and at the same time adaptive (self-adaptive) guidance and control system included in the common information field of a modern surface ship and having the ability to reconfigure when the range of tasks solved by the ship changes at the current time.
Author:
216 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 17 January 2016 05: 44 New
    15
    A very interesting article and the author correctly raises controversial issues, they must be resolved now and not in the conditions of hostilities, as was the case in the recent CAUCASUS military campaigns

    They, as always in such cases, will answer you: this is a closed topic, and you do not have the appropriate access. I experienced this in my personal experience ...


    It's funny of course ... often I find these closed topics (in general terms of course) on foreign resources ...
    excessive closedness harms any business.
    1. feniks
      feniks 17 January 2016 06: 52 New
      36
      Quote: The same Lech
      A very interesting article and the author correctly raises controversial issues, they must be resolved now and not in the conditions of hostilities, as was the case in the recent CAUCASUS military campaigns


      And who is he this author? He is a military expert, I tried to find this "celebrity" in a search engine, but she didn’t tell me anything. So his opinion is just his opinion. Facts, arguments, and an article for layman.
      1. Kapdva
        Kapdva 17 January 2016 07: 02 New
        0
        I’m sorry, I accidentally clicked the minus. I completely agree with you. If I could put five pluses.
        1. hrapon
          hrapon 17 January 2016 10: 25 New
          0
          Quote: Capdwa
          I’m sorry, I accidentally clicked the minus. I completely agree with you. If I could put five pluses.


          Nothing I returned to him plus ...
          1. Yars
            Yars 17 January 2016 15: 11 New
            +3
            and I returned! I would like to add that it is funny to read such phrases -
            The construction of new warships is carried out using outdated technologies that call into question the very concept of the combat readiness of an entire type of armed forces.

            the launch of cruise missiles from ships on terrorists in Syria clearly showed that everything works even very well, even if some of them do not doubt!
            1. Inok10
              Inok10 17 January 2016 16: 43 New
              20
              Quote: YARS
              I’d like to add that it’s ridiculous to read such phrases -

              .. as well as to see the illustration of ZRAK "Chestnut" which the "author" called "Shell M" .. on the attached screen .. the author you are an eccentric letter M .. laughing ..after that, I didn’t even read this nonsense .. not an article, but bullshit .. laughing
              1. Inok10
                Inok10 17 January 2016 16: 56 New
                +5
                .. Model CRAF "Shell-ME" at the exhibition MVSM-2011, St. Petersburg (photo - muxel, http://bmpd.livejournal.com) ... hi
                1. Alex777
                  Alex777 18 January 2016 06: 07 New
                  +4
                  As for Pantsyrya M, the author of the photo, of course, beguiled. Yes, and you have it is irrelevant.
                  But as for the normal ZAK, he is 100% right.
                  The best that really is - Broadsword (Palm). And he was not standing next to the Goalkeeper.
                  And Pine R Broadsword won't be screwed up yet. And it stands without missiles at 22350.
                  Air defense corvettes 20380 is absent as such. Long explain to those who are not in the subject.
            2. varov14
              varov14 17 January 2016 21: 19 New
              +5
              It’s kind of not about launching cruise missiles, but about how to protect them so that they take off.
            3. ratcatcher
              ratcatcher 18 January 2016 04: 24 New
              +7
              The author is about air defense, and you are about Caliber. It’s something like - we dumped trucks, but nothing, but the excavator is good ...
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 18 January 2016 20: 56 New
                +2
                What affor redoubt non-air defense?
            4. AREOPAG23
              AREOPAG23 18 January 2016 19: 04 New
              0
              The article is not about launching missiles from a ship, the author expresses concern about the defense
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 18 January 2016 20: 57 New
                0
                The best defense is an attack.
      2. candy wrapper13
        candy wrapper13 17 January 2016 09: 59 New
        15
        * so article for the layman. * - wow repeat and most of those reading this article and there are * Philistines * (like me laughing ) and let the experts speak at closed conferences (as is customary, not for us to ruin us)
        memory doesn’t change, under the USSR it was - it was on * foreign resources. * inform resource- * NATO review * (for * official use * - had to read translations on my topic) what they wrote very different from open western press request
        closed topics are therefore closed (you know you sleep better wink )
      3. 78bor1973
        78bor1973 17 January 2016 10: 32 New
        12
        The author should have compared, at least one western corvette with our "Guardian", there simply weren’t any analogues, the corvettes were rather limited armament ships (either air defense or anti-aircraft defense) and the 11380 corvette, the richest in armaments, and universal in tasks!
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 17 January 2016 16: 37 New
          10
          "for every 1000 rounds fired from the ZAK, in the midsection (the largest cross-sectional area of ​​a body moving in water or air) RCC with an area of ​​0,1 sq. m will get no more than 4 shells."
          4 shells is not enough to shoot down? You can say in another way - the larger the dispersion area, the greater the probability of hitting. And given that 2-4 installations will work on the target, the probability of shooting down increases by 2-4 times. Perhaps you should to attract larger air bow and stern (where available) 76-100 mm caliber to the air defense function with remotely detonated shells, where a direct hit is not necessary
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 January 2016 16: 54 New
            +4
            S: "-the larger the dispersion area, the greater the probability of being hit" It's Five !!! good
          2. mervino2007
            mervino2007 17 January 2016 21: 28 New
            +4
            Quote: Pilat2009
            the larger the dispersion area, the greater the probability of being hit.

            You forgot about such a thing as QUALITY shooting.
        2. mervino2007
          mervino2007 17 January 2016 21: 26 New
          +4
          Quote: 78bor1973
          The author should compare at least one western corvette with our "Guardian"

          The author does the right thing in expressing his thoughts. To untie the artillery and missile units, to make them more independent, on the ship - God himself commanded. Combination is the fate of a land installation, where it is justified. Although with regards to the Shell - its striking ability is clearly small, there are many examples, including and video. And how these, combined, installations on our ships are located - just sucks! No need to be an expert, the firing zones are small and not effective! It is a pity, but the thoughts of the author of the article, obviously true, will not be perceived by "decisive heads." As always, the CORPORATE approach will prevail.
        3. Alex777
          Alex777 18 January 2016 06: 19 New
          0
          11380 ??? What kind of beast is this?
      4. musorg
        musorg 17 January 2016 11: 37 New
        +3
        A lot of "experts" have appeared, but I don’t know this.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Botanologist
            Botanologist 17 January 2016 14: 55 New
            11
            Any ship can be sunk at least RCC, at least a torpedo. Therefore, before designers it is always a problem to find a balance between Wishlist and opportunities. And this is not easy. Here Donavi49 wrote that the concept of non-zero counteraction was adopted on the latest 22800 corvettes, so there is no way to put two air defense circuits there, no matter how you argue.
            And about the improvement of artillery - I think that no one will open R&D on the naval artillery, when we cannot launch the frigates built due to the lack of turbines. The budget is not rubber in the first place. And secondly, today the concept of the fleet is more coastal than oceanic. And in the coastal air defense zone and reconnaissance will be provided by the coast. And the corvette’s task is to bring the Caliber to a quiet place, from where it will fly.
            This does not eliminate the need to make modern air defense systems, but it has always been known that it is easier to sink the carrier than to fight off a pack of anti-ship missiles.
      5. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 17 January 2016 13: 07 New
        51
        An incomprehensible GOLKIPER advertisement, the author is poorly versed not only in the air defense systems of the ship, but also can’t correctly calculate the number of projectiles fired per unit of time. It is absolutely incomprehensible how the AK-630 spacing affects the accuracy - the author needs to look at the operation of the VIMPEL system. In general, half of what is written -bred. For more than 10 years I was engaged in VYMPELAMI and many of the author’s statements have become a revelation to me. Besides, the author is not aware that Vimpel manages not only fly swatter, but also a bow gun, which can do quite well with air targets. And from this it follows that the ship’s defense against air attack means is circular, there are no dead zones. In general, it’s another couch expert who finds information in open sources, but never took part in the life of the fleet.
        1. Alexy
          Alexy 17 January 2016 13: 48 New
          +3
          I absolutely agree with you. To put it mildly, a controversial article. It turns out all of our bad and lagging behind, and they are all perfectly and modern. And any weapons must be considered based on the combat use of this class of ship, which is not traced in the article.
          1. neri73-r
            neri73-r 17 January 2016 15: 10 New
            +5
            the existing capabilities of the “Goalkeeper” (which in terms of accuracy of fire and already surpasses the Russian ZAK AK - 630M almost 3,5 times!


            And for accuracy? If I’m not mistaken, then the shells should fly in a “cloud” in order to increase the zone of probable destruction, and not in a chain.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 17 January 2016 15: 41 New
              -4
              in order for the shells to fly "in the cloud", a volley of, say, 100 shells is needed. In AK 630, they still fly in a “chain” with a spread of tens of meters to max. the distance. This is not a shotgun. Those. in each unit of time, huge areas of this "scatter" turn out to be unaffected. Plus the firing line and the aiming line do not coincide by 10 meters. Accuracy ZRAK needs a lot, and not just rate of fire
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 3 January 2017 11: 24 New
                0
                Right. ZAK requires maximum accuracy, because the higher the spread in the queue, the less likely it is that something will get into the RCC, with a strong restriction on the time of the shelling. The anti-aircraft machine is not a gambler, shots are fired with an interval of 0,012s, but at a speed of 900m / s, the shells in the route are 10-11m apart. During this time, the subsonic target will shift by 3,6m. At KVO 6 sq. M. at 1500m, there is a good chance that the target will avoid hitting, or receive insufficiently strong damage and continue flying.
                Outputs 2: reduce the QUO (increase accuracy) and increase the rate of fire. The Chinese, at least, are trying to go the 2 way, creating ZAK Type 1130 (10000 rds / min from one block of trunks). The lack of installation, in my opinion, is the lack of water cooling (closer to our AK-306).
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Jack-b
            Jack-b 18 January 2016 11: 06 New
            +3
            Particularly many questions are raised by Photo No. 7-1, on which the ZAK is located, or rather, is hidden in a certain side recess, which, apparently, should make it invisible to the enemy.
            And for what it is necessary, I just want to ask the designers of this “unique technical solution”? After all, the main idea of ​​the existence of any ZAK in a battle is to die, save a battle ship from defeat. How will the ship be saved by an artillery complex with a limited sector of shelling, moreover, “hidden” in an onboard recess?

            This is the lightweight aircraft carrier of the British Navy "Invincible". Pay attention to how and how logically verified are placed on the deck of the warship 30-mm ZAK "Goalkeeper"

            And who was hiding there in the stern ditch on the port side?
            Suddenly?
        2. kepmor
          kepmor 17 January 2016 14: 56 New
          12
          Indeed, there are 360 ​​on the air defense missile defense system, but the Osama air defense missile system REALLY gets fucked even at 150m / s in its firing sector (0-135 from each side) with the heading parameter-0, even with a flight height of 5-10 m above the water. - Well, the Osa shooting station doesn’t see anything below 25m!
          As for the ZAK AK-630 with the MP-123 Vympel, under similar conditions against anti-ship missiles, the situation is better, but not by much. The 123rd also has no noise immunity ... if you can see anti-ship missiles through a television, but nuuuu very hard!
          In fact, against any modern anti-ship missiles, any ship with even the strongest air defense, anti-aircraft defense and electronic warfare is unlikely to stand up. (EPR 17m.sq.) at a speed of at least 100 m / s and on the N-200m above the water it flies directly aboard, but not one from different directions.
          After all, NOBODY in the world NEVER conducted REAL SHIP tests to repel an attack of anti-ship missiles on a suicide ship until now!
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 18 January 2016 06: 17 New
            +2
            The Americans spent.
            Ended with the famous photo with a hole in the destroyer.
          2. Outsmarted
            Outsmarted 18 January 2016 07: 02 New
            +2
            Quote: kepmor
            Indeed, there are 360 ​​on the air defense missile defense system, but the Osama air defense missile system REALLY gets fucked even at 150m / s in its firing sector (0-135 from each side) with the heading parameter-0, even with a flight height of 5-10 m above the water. - Well, the Osa shooting station doesn’t see anything below 25m!
            As for the ZAK AK-630 with the MP-123 Vympel, under similar conditions against anti-ship missiles, the situation is better, but not by much. The 123rd also has no noise immunity ... if you can see anti-ship missiles through a television, but nuuuu very hard!
            In fact, against any modern anti-ship missiles, any ship with even the strongest air defense, anti-aircraft defense and electronic warfare is unlikely to stand up. (EPR 17m.sq.) at a speed of at least 100 m / s and on the N-200m above the water it flies directly aboard, but not one from different directions.
            After all, NOBODY in the world NEVER conducted REAL SHIP tests to repel an attack of anti-ship missiles on a suicide ship until now!

            The death of the rocket ship "Monsoon"
            http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/491155/
            1. kepmor
              kepmor 18 January 2016 15: 05 New
              0
              Unfortunately, the story with the "Monsoon" is the top of the fleet insanity and sloppiness of the command of all levels (from the commander of the Primorye flotilla to the commander of the MRK)!
              So your irony is inappropriate here - people died ...
        3. kostolom45
          kostolom45 18 January 2016 00: 39 New
          +3
          dude does not know that parallax is automatically taken into account from the 40s of the last century.
          article - graphomaniac delirium
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 18 January 2016 06: 28 New
            -1
            Well, of course, both the Americans with the Phalanxes are fools and the Dutch with the Goalkeepers, and the Chinese too. Fasten malacholny radars to their installations.
            We are alone on our way since the 40s.
            Even the Indians stopped buying our ZRAKI. Take only the AK-630.
            About the stealth ZRAKOV even say nothing.
      6. g1v2
        g1v2 17 January 2016 14: 34 New
        +2
        Such articles usually come out when someone wants to get a tasty order from my. And then articles come out that everything was gone and only installing or buying something can save the world and Moscow Region. REGULAR ADVERTISING and nothing more. hi
        1. Heapoiss
          Heapoiss 19 January 2016 21: 46 New
          0
          "when someone wants a tasty order"
          I got the same thought ...
      7. VIT101
        VIT101 17 January 2016 16: 00 New
        +2
        "And who is he this author?"

        That’s the main argument of the “fools” against. And not a single answer on the merits. With such "junkies" we will wait for the new 41st.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 17 January 2016 18: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: VIT101
          And not a single answer on the merits.

          Have you carefully read the comments on the article?
          1. varov14
            varov14 17 January 2016 22: 46 New
            -4
            Suppose I read the comments, exactly before yours, but I did not see a constructive one. If you are satisfied with the "mass grave", then I am violet. But I will give you an example of a non-standard solution that came to me like reading this article. Immediately make a reservation, for example, fantasy. Of course, I saw the sea, I had to rest, the ships are only in the picture, so I can’t even imagine what it looks like, that's why I say the solution - fantasy. But a custom solution is an engine of progress. So (if only) most likely there are rescue boats on your "mass grave", if the ship lives 5 minutes, then they don’t perform their functionality, so for complacency. Therefore, instead of these boats there should be high-speed drums armed with these very harpoons, etc. if our bomber ships ordinary bombs, then why the uterus cannot command these boats, I’m talking about the principle again. I never saw anything live, just as an example I showed the principle of a non-standard solution. And the ship, of course, must be protected from all sides, which is arguable here.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 17 January 2016 23: 18 New
              0
              Quote: varov14
              Therefore, instead of these boats there should be high-speed drums armed with these very harpoons, etc.

              And where do you shove the systems providing the functioning of these air defense systems? Any ship is limited in size and if you try to shove everything that is possible on it, you get 1144 with its 26000 tons. The main air defense squadrons are ships of the 1st rank.
              As for the corvette, which the author is considering, there is a "Redoubt" on it - a sea-based anti-aircraft complex with a vertical launch, that is, shooting in any direction.
              Previous comments like this one:
              Quote: Inok10
              as well as see the illustration of the ZRAK "Chestnut" which the "author" called "Shell M" .. on the attached screen
      8. vipdollar
        vipdollar 17 January 2016 16: 02 New
        10
        The article and attacks on small and "weak" ships of Russia with "weak" air defense systems, which were bombed by Caliber on the Igil, are not wealthy and moronic. These ships are far from 5 minutes. In general, they may not have air defense on their board, since they are so small in size, since they can, without leaving the base of the fleet, directly from the pier, bombard the whole of Europe and the entire Middle East with nuclear caliber under the powerful cover of the air defense of the naval base and fleet aviation base. This category of small ships threatening the whole of Europe was created in order to circumvent the agreement with NATO on medium-range missiles in Europe in the Ground Forces. And to water across Europe from the water directly from the berths and under the cover of the Air Force Base fleet. And there the mouse will not slip. All naval bases of the Russian fleet today are protected by a layered air defense system. Well, well, these kids can keep the floor of the world. Moreover, the Coast and Bastion system is still taking advantage of everyone who passes by the Fleet base on ships along the Black Sea. And also stands in defense of the Fleet base.
      9. vipdollar
        vipdollar 17 January 2016 16: 02 New
        0
        The article and attacks on small and "weak" ships of Russia with "weak" air defense systems, which were bombed by Caliber on the Igil, are not wealthy and moronic. These ships are far from 5 minutes. In general, they may not have air defense on their board, since they are so small in size, since they can, without leaving the base of the fleet, directly from the pier, bombard the whole of Europe and the entire Middle East with nuclear caliber under the powerful cover of the air defense of the naval base and fleet aviation base. This category of small ships threatening the whole of Europe was created in order to circumvent the agreement with NATO on medium-range missiles in Europe in the Ground Forces. And to water across Europe from the water directly from the berths and under the cover of the Air Force Base fleet. And there the mouse will not slip. All naval bases of the Russian fleet today are protected by a layered air defense system. Well, well, these kids can keep the floor of the world. Moreover, the Coast and Bastion system is still taking advantage of everyone who passes by the Fleet base on ships along the Black Sea. And also stands in defense of the Fleet base.
      10. go21zd45few
        go21zd45few 17 January 2016 18: 27 New
        +1
        It seems to me that this expert in the design and construction of ships
        He doesn’t know what a stringer and pillers are, but also there.
        1. Heapoiss
          Heapoiss 19 January 2016 21: 49 New
          0
          "does not know what stringer and pillers are"
          And you can send it to Klotik for tea, and it’ll go ...
          laughing
      11. vkfriendly
        vkfriendly 18 January 2016 06: 12 New
        0
        There’s some kind of “newly-minted expert” from the Maxspark network, there are plenty of such strategists. He writes without permission and tries to fantasize on the topic of defense, but who will tell you if you are without permission.
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 17 January 2016 07: 05 New
      46
      “Pantsir-M” (Photo No. 2), which, as it turns out, goes into service with the Russian Navy in 2016!


      firstly in photo 2, not Carapace M, but Cortic-Chestnut, but Carapace M like this
      secondly, the goalkeeper’s photo is also very "successful" guns are not visible, instead of the gun, some x_r sticks out
      And where is the effect of the so-called underlying surface, in other words, water, on the operation of the ship's radar system (radar)? After all, it is 3-5 times stronger than on earth, reflects radio waves


      what actually took the marine complex without sea trials? Is this really so and what prevented the developers from conducting tests at sea?
      During the modernization, it is assumed that the existing capabilities of the Goalkeeper (which in terms of accuracy of fire and already surpasses the Russian ZAK AK - 630M by almost 3,5 times!) Will be significantly expanded through the use of a more modern electron-optical tracking system


      this thesis is very controversial, anti-aircraft artillery rapid-fire small-caliber complexes and should not shoot closely by the fact that getting into a high-speed, maneuvering target with a narrow beam of shells is mathematically difficult, so a solution to this problem was found a long time ago - not to hit a bullseye, which is difficult to determine, and the probable is the distributed area of ​​the approaching target, so that the accuracy of the ZAK is thought to be optional.

      At present, unfortunately, it is an anachronism inherited from the 3th century. The concept of a combat module “with two suitcases” (transport and launch containers with anti-aircraft missiles and guns, separated for some reason by a distance of XNUMX m horizontally), which is not amenable to technical understanding in the XNUMXst century, both in terms of logic and from the point of view of tactics of conducting modern fleeting naval combat, in fact, it impedes the normal development and improvement of promising domestic ZAK, which, in reality, are necessary for our modern surface warships.


      why would this scheme of our missile and artillery complex suddenly become an “anachronism”? The statement is unproven and dubious in essence.
      As for the arrangement and placement of the ZRAK and ZAK on the ships, it would not hurt the author to take the same ships for the sake of cleanliness of analysis, if he began to analyze the watchdogs or corvettes, then do the same for the probable enemy, and do not compare the gantryman and the aircraft carrier. I don’t think that English watchdogs are better arranged in the sense of defense against air attacks and that there are absolutely no "dead zones" there.
      In general, it would be nice to listen to sailors about the problems raised in the fleet ...
      1. Sura
        Sura 17 January 2016 07: 53 New
        0
        Articles of this kind were about our aviation, they showed what they are capable of, now they switched to the fleet, I wonder how much the State Department paid for this nonsense. He writes that, as a private, uninformed person, he suddenly knows better than the KB collectives for centuries (even during the revolution, the bones of the Navy KB did not fall apart).
        1. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 17 January 2016 08: 37 New
          19
          I agree that the article is controversial.
          Only what does the State Department. Intrigues have always been in our defense industry. Given the tragic events of the 90s, it is not surprising that industry and military science have not yet recovered at the proper level.
          1. Sura
            Sura 17 January 2016 08: 55 New
            -3
            Not controversial, but clearly provocative, which is why the State Department is aimed at our youth, to raise doubt. Do you need to describe the technology of manipulating consciousness?
            1. samuil60
              samuil60 17 January 2016 09: 53 New
              22
              I immediately recall the recent past, when a couple of years ago some senior officers - and representatives of the General Staff! - directly stated that it was necessary to stop the production of Russian tanks (they say, they’re no good) and start buying leopard tanks in Germany. The same idea is traced in the article - our technology is hopelessly behind in comparison with the wonderful examples of Western engineering.
            2. musorg
              musorg 17 January 2016 11: 40 New
              +5
              Specialists need to answer such articles!
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 17 January 2016 14: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Sura
          I wonder how much the State Department paid for this nonsense.

          Be kind to the price list, otherwise I can’t find it. hi
          1. Sura
            Sura 17 January 2016 16: 05 New
            -1
            Everything is in order with the head? ... Who is putting the similar info, most likely there are TOP on the first page with big beeches hi
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 17 January 2016 19: 31 New
              +1
              Quote: Sura
              Is everything all right with the head? ...

              Everything is in order with the head, but your consciousness seems to be “manipulated" And if you have not seen the price list, why write any ....?lol
              1. Sura
                Sura 17 January 2016 23: 38 New
                0
                The price list is in the State Department, and he is across the ocean, you yourself know where and how much they pay out how many householders attracted, the article here on VO was about those paid, my friend’s war, the war, and first of all the ideological one, about your price list 5 greenyards themselves admitted for 20 years to Ukraine spent more on us, but don’t take you to us, which you’ve been trying for a century and everything’s not like lol
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 3 January 2017 09: 22 New
          0
          And what did aviation show in Syria? The opportunity to bomb the barmaley with impunity? This is not even Iraq, not Libya, not Georgia in the end, where it was necessary to first crush air defense and micro-air forces. Here is a symmetrical answer to the Turks in 2015 would show that our VKS can.
          And the Syrian work could, perhaps, be performed by the legendary IL-2 ...
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 17 January 2016 08: 18 New
        +9
        Quote: Sveles
        rather than compare the jogger and the aircraft carrier.

        To the point, we have corvettes and MAKs, on the other hand, the destroyer and aircraft carrier, equivalent platforms, you will not say anything. request
      3. inkass_98
        inkass_98 17 January 2016 08: 43 New
        +6
        The author and the Falkland Islands are Maldives, so there is nothing to be surprised laughing , you can just read the article as a joke.
        1. hrapon
          hrapon 17 January 2016 10: 13 New
          11
          Quote: inkass_98
          The author and the Falkland Islands are Maldives, so there is nothing to be surprised laughing , you can just read the article as a joke.


          Right True, the Falkland Islands are called the British. For Argentines, these are the Malvinas Islands, but certainly not the Maldives. We write the error to the "reverie of the author."

          Regarding the article: the author’s enthusiasm and inquisitive mind is commendable, but the conclusions about the inefficiency of domestic systems of short-range air defense look superficial and sweeping. I can hardly imagine that at the development stage designers would not conduct mathematical modeling, and even more incredible is the statement about “defective” tests. In the same style, the well-known "experts" cherished our tanks from WWII and admired the German ones.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 17 January 2016 14: 48 New
            +4
            Quote: hrapon
            For Argentines, these are the Malvinas Islands, but certainly not the Maldives.

            The mistake came out, the Maldivian is a little out smile hi
            1. hrapon
              hrapon 17 January 2016 14: 57 New
              +3
              Quote: Bayonet
              Quote: hrapon
              For Argentines, these are the Malvinas Islands, but certainly not the Maldives.

              The mistake came out, the Maldivian is a little out smile hi


              Whose mistake are you pointing out? Where are the Maldives, the Russians know well.
              1. Vladimirets
                Vladimirets 17 January 2016 15: 25 New
                +4
                Quote: hrapon
                Where are the Maldives, the Russians know well.

                I assure you, far from all. wink
              2. Bayonet
                Bayonet 17 January 2016 19: 29 New
                +1
                Quote: hrapon
                Whose mistake are you pointing out?

                With humor, how? smile hi
        2. Reducer
          Reducer 17 January 2016 11: 37 New
          +2
          Yes, call them what you want!
          Just look at the statistics of ship losses from anti-ship missiles for this period and think about it.
          A competent line-up of military equipment for the ship is vital. This includes saving the combat stock and the ability to complete tasks (the author only touched upon the ship’s own defense, but what if he performs the tasks of an escort?), Etc.
          I recall the program on the "Star" on the "Shell" where, under ideal conditions, they could not shoot down a target from cannons - I had to hit with a rocket.
          1. jjj
            jjj 17 January 2016 12: 51 New
            +1
            Worked out on Indian orders. Everything got along badly with each other there. But they worked
          2. neri73-r
            neri73-r 17 January 2016 17: 38 New
            +3
            Quote: Reduktor
            I recall the program on the "Star" on the "Shell" where, under ideal conditions, they could not shoot down a target from cannons - I had to hit with a rocket.



            If you are telling something, then tell in detail, otherwise, according to the meaning of your post, the people who have not seen this plot will have the impression that they didn’t hit !!! They didn’t shoot this drone there just because the target was too small and flew through the "cloud" of shells, falling between them (shells). He is tormented, expecting that at least one shell will hit, they did not and were shot down with a rocket the first time. If the target were larger, the plane, the helicopter, the anti-ship missiles would be shot down right away, the accuracy there wasn’t limping! hi
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 17 January 2016 17: 50 New
              0
              Accuracy is not limping? This is dispersion - i.e. low precision guns! The radar then points straight at the target, and the shells are streaming across the area. The goalkeeper would have failed this goal with the first round.
            2. Reducer
              Reducer 19 January 2016 14: 16 New
              0
              So talk about it!
      4. sa-ag
        sa-ag 17 January 2016 08: 50 New
        +4
        Quote: Sveles
        so that the ZAK accuracy is thought to be optional.

        When firing from Shell-C1 in Kamchatka, it was revealed that only artillery was not enough to hit a target, it was necessary to use rockets, so accuracy is still important
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 17 January 2016 09: 24 New
          +6
          Quote: sa-ag
          Quote: Sveles
          so that the ZAK accuracy is thought to be optional.

          When firing from Shell-C1 in Kamchatka, it was revealed that only artillery was not enough to hit a target, it was necessary to use rockets, so accuracy is still important


          again, land and sea armor are different systems, on a 2A38M ground machine with a firing rate of 2.5 thousand rpm, and on a six-barreled sea automatic machine it’s 5 thousand rds / min, so the sea hit rate is simply higher ...
          1. umah
            umah 17 January 2016 19: 55 New
            -4
            on a ground machine 2A38M with a rate of fire of 2.5tys / min, and on a sea six-barreled machine -5tys.rds / min

            On land Shell 4 trunk, and on the sea 2. So both have the same rate of fire - 10 thousand / min.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 18 January 2016 06: 40 New
              0
              If on the land Shell 4 trunks, then on the sea - 12 fellow
      5. Koshak
        Koshak 17 January 2016 11: 23 New
        +6
        Quote: Sveles
        this thesis is very controversial, anti-aircraft artillery rapid-fire small-caliber complexes and should not shoot closely by the fact that getting into a high-speed, maneuvering target with a narrow beam of shells is mathematically difficult, so a solution to this problem was found a long time ago - not to hit a bullseye, which is difficult to determine, and the probable is the distributed area of ​​the approaching target, so that the accuracy of the ZAK is thought to be optional.

        Not only is it not mandatory, in such complexes the function of dispersing shells by a "cone" is initially laid
    3. seos
      seos 17 January 2016 08: 04 New
      +4
      Actually, a 57mm anti-aircraft gun with a guided projectile is being developed ..
      But in fact, the anti-aircraft weapons of our ships look very weak ... On corvettes in general, only melee air defense ... even MANPADS are not clear why ... Only the leading ship is guarded by the group, with its loss, the group loses combat effectiveness.
      I watched a video where a 35 mm Rheinmetal gun with shrapnel shot down mortar mines in the air, the result is impressive.
      We had a very good marine shell 30X210V (no worse than German 35mm) in vain it was replaced by 30X165.
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 17 January 2016 08: 45 New
        +9
        Quote: seos
        Actually, a 57mm anti-aircraft gun with a guided projectile is being developed ..


        with "managed"? I have not heard about this, maybe a link ...

        Quote: seos
        But in fact, the anti-aircraft weapons of our ships look very weak


        "weak" in relation to what? in relation to NATO ships? unsubstantiated, why argue, take any pair of ships comparable in class to ours and not ours, and consider it will be right ...

        Quote: seos
        I watched a video where a 35 mm Rheinmetal gun with shrapnel shot down mortar mines in the air, the result is impressive.



        nnda mine then what speed is flying? and the anti-ship missile? These are incomparable values, or you’re not impressed ...
        1. Reducer
          Reducer 17 January 2016 12: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: Sveles
          in relation to what? in relation to NATO ships? unsubstantiated, why argue, take any pair of ships comparable in class to ours and not ours, and consider it will be right ..


          What are you going to compare security with security?!?!? The author gave examples of the location of air defense systems.
          We fantasize:
          1. The marching flight height of the “Exoset” can reach 1-2 meters above the crests of the waves.
          2. The “Guardian” was hit from the front, how to defend oneself?
        2. NIKNN
          NIKNN 17 January 2016 13: 15 New
          +4
          Abroad called AHEAD technology. AHEAD is a high-explosive fragmentation ordnance with a remote fuse and tungsten ready-made striking elements (GGE), which is optimized for hitting air targets, including attack missiles and projectiles. The AHEAD remote fuse is automatically programmed before leaving the muzzle to release 152 tungsten gas-emitting explosives directly in front of the target. This, combined with the high rate of fire of the gun, makes it possible to destroy small, fast-flying air targets with a high probability of destruction.

          Using this technology, there is a tendency to increase the caliber ZAK. The possibilities of using all artillery in the flesh to the main caliber are being considered.
      2. letinant
        letinant 17 January 2016 09: 06 New
        +2
        We have shrapnel in 20-mm shells used since the 60s.
        1. Hydrograph
          Hydrograph 17 January 2016 14: 23 New
          +1
          Where is it with us? They didn’t confuse the caliber.
    4. R0B0T
      R0B0T 17 January 2016 18: 47 New
      0
      Correct understanding of the problem +
    5. KaPToC
      KaPToC 17 January 2016 20: 10 New
      -1
      The author is dumb as a cork, but most likely the article is custom-made. There are anti-aircraft missiles, there are electronic warfare equipment, if it comes to small-caliber anti-aircraft guns - it means the battle is already lost and the ship will save nothing.
  2. bad
    bad 17 January 2016 05: 45 New
    25
    cheap samopiar with a claim to an indisputable opinion .. such experts are now kilometers and every damn truth is the last resort .. there are sovereign people who receive money for everything related to the army and navy and in general with the defense of RUSSIA they have a big head and it’s responsible to let them deal ..to squeeze an article with a bunch of clever words and googled images - there is no evidence of your competence in this regard .. do you want to raise a wave on the forum? .. at least zamusnuyte against the stop ..
    1. meriem1
      meriem1 17 January 2016 06: 46 New
      15
      Quote: bad
      cheap samopiar with a claim to an indisputable opinion .. such experts are now kilometers and every damn truth is the last resort .. there are sovereign people who receive money for everything related to the army and navy and in general with the defense of RUSSIA they have a big head and it’s responsible to let them deal ..to squeeze an article with a bunch of clever words and googled images - there is no evidence of your competence in this regard .. do you want to raise a wave on the forum? .. at least zamusnuyte against the stop ..

      This is not the first time Bobrovsky has written such defeatist articles! But then all his arguments were smashed to pieces !! Especially interesting approach. "Nothing of the kind has changed except for increasing the length of the trunks." Let him then write about the unchanging form of missiles and write that they are old! Well it is. For example. This "master" does not think that the fire control system has changed for a long time, for example? TTX of ammunition ... But in other matters there is not even a reason to explain! it is empty!
      1. papik09
        papik09 17 January 2016 07: 25 New
        12
        Quote: meriem1
        This "master" does not think that the fire control system has changed for a long time, for example? TTX Ammunition ...

        He also forgot that for the AK-630, high accuracy is only to the detriment. But the dispersion of shells is precisely its advantage. You need to watch practical firing - you can see the "cloud" of shells there.)))
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 17 January 2016 14: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: meriem1
        This is not the first time Bobrovsky has written such defeatist articles!

        And what is "defeatism"? And what is this stigma? Can I just scream URA? request
    2. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 17 January 2016 11: 35 New
      12
      Hmm ....

      Far from mistakes and controversial statements, he is right in a number of things

      Most of our new ships are equipped with antediluvian weapons for the near defense line.

      The 20380,20385,21630,22800,12700 project, they all carry the ancient Ak-630, with the corresponding characteristics. 22160 does not carry anything from the near air defense.

      The modern complex is only on 22350, and there Broadsword showed itself quite well.

      Well, if the same 380-385 had a weak near-air defense, so far there at the appropriate level ... For Redut, there is no normal command and control system on this project, it’s further than 15 km and doesn’t shoot at it ... It’s also exacerbated by problems with missiles ..

      At the expense of Nakhimov-Pantsir-M there will be, just in the documents everything is "veiled" there, which is like Kortik. That's all.


      Yes, and yet, articles must be judged not in spirit — defeatist, not defeatist, pan-propaganda, ne-sepropal
      Sky, and objective biased, corresponding to the truth or vice versa.

      Or sho? I want to write only after each article-URAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAAYAYAYAAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAMYEVSILSIL
      1. Reducer
        Reducer 17 January 2016 15: 03 New
        +1
        Thank God! some have common sense! hi
      2. Falcon
        Falcon 18 January 2016 10: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
        For Reduta, there is no normal command center on this project, it is farther than 15 and does not shoot at it ...


        Why xnumx km? Furke may well determine at ranges comparable to 15m9 (near)
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 January 2016 14: 56 New
      -1
      Quote: bad
      cheap self-PR with a claim to undeniable opinions ..

      Well, of course, criticizing one’s own is a taboo, it’s not patriotic! You can be complacent, you can stupidly praise, but what about a real battle?
      Quote: bad
      .There are sovereign people who receive money for everything related to the army and navy and, in general, to the defense of RUSSIA, they have a big head
  3. almost demobil
    almost demobil 17 January 2016 06: 01 New
    38
    Thanks to Vyacheslav Bobrovsky for opening our eyes. It turns out that our oak-headed scientists create garbage, and no less oak-headed shipbuilders, spit on technical tasks, build garbage trucks with unicorns mounted on battery decks with folding ports in the sides. But the probable opponent - he is smart and enlightened, he does not clean trunks with ground bricks. It is disgusting to read such analysts.
    Vyacheslav, please write to us about the "Armata", this is a tank our fools have cooked up, and we will laugh heartily.
    1. Rivares
      Rivares 17 January 2016 14: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: almost demob
      Vyacheslav, please write to us about the "Armata", this is a tank our fools have cooked up, and we will laugh heartily.

      Criticism has always been and will be, take it “critically”. A flurry of criticism rained down on the T-34, moreover, it was justified and true !!! And throughout the war, the 34-ku was constantly upgraded and improved. And do not laugh, and turn on the head. Sound criticism (rather than criticism) is always beneficial.
  4. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 17 January 2016 06: 21 New
    10
    The opinion of one person ... Yes, the article is set out quite clearly, BUT .. It’s easy to name fools and dumbheads of all the Chokh design bureaus and military sailors. Author, persuade designers, military leadership, and not look for samopiar, they say I'm alone against everyone ..
    1. Foxmara
      Foxmara 17 January 2016 09: 45 New
      +1
      Yes, maybe the author expects to pull out a thread of secrets, suddenly on the forum who will talk? infa is now expensive soldier
      1. hrapon
        hrapon 17 January 2016 10: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: Foxmara
        Yes, maybe the author expects to pull out a thread of secrets, suddenly on the forum who will talk? infa is now expensive soldier


        Not excluded. In my opinion, even a very likely motive.

        And also for “military experts” like Felken .., Fielkingauer. Sorry, I won’t whisper ...
        Well, so that all sorts of hopes could refer to such an "expert" opinion during the "popular talk shows."
    2. sniper
      sniper 17 January 2016 12: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: dmi.pris
      .Yes, the article is stated quite clearly

      And, as for me, it’s an ordinary hysteria ... A lot of loud screams and no facts. Some unfounded allegations, comparisons of warm with soft, and comparisons somehow .... Everything is at the kindergarten level: "They have good, but we have only pests" ... A dirty libel ... hi
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 January 2016 15: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: dmi.pris
      It’s easy to call fools and dumbheads of all Chokh KB and military sailors.

      I revised the article several times, but I didn’t find “fools and dumbheads” request
      Cite where it was?
      1. sniper
        sniper 17 January 2016 15: 21 New
        -1
        Quote: Bayonet
        I reviewed the article several times,

        Sasha, welcome! drinks The very tone of the article is very unpleasant, on the verge of personal insults, which is completely unacceptable. From a technical point of view, in general a dummy, no numbers, some emotions and colorful photographs. Comparison with a hunting rifle touches ... It’s not clear that when hunting for snipe (and RCC is snipe, not a bear), ammunition is specially equipped to increase the dispersion of the shot ... And so on. The very idea of ​​the article can and does take place, I don’t know, not an expert, but execution brings everything to nothing ... Well, somehow, in my opinion ...
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 17 January 2016 16: 01 New
          -1
          Duc shot is fired at a time, and ZAK hits with a jet. The author pointed out that the goalkeeper melts the toilet with this jet, and our snow can not melt - dispersion of tens of meters. And people stubbornly say that accuracy is not needed, moreover, the dissipation is specially incorporated in the design yes Only this is not a fraction. Take a laser pointer from a hangover and hit a soccer ball - do you need accuracy? or trembling hands (dispersal)? Now bow your head to the left, and stretch your hand with a pointer to the right - here you have the AK-630! And now let someone shake you, turning left and right - here you have the Dirk, Chestnut, Shell. Well this is exaggerated, of course.
          Precision really needed
          1. sniper
            sniper 17 January 2016 17: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: Tlauicol
            Duc shot is fired at a time, and ZAK hits with a jet. The author pointed out
            Ivan, the author gave an example of a shotgun, and not I, I think that such a comparison is inappropriate. I simply indicated that the author’s knowledge in shotguns is not so great as to give them as an example. My post is not about the problem, but directly about the article, and it is terrible. It is possible that the problem really exists, I am too far from this topic and can not judge. But even so, this is no reason to mud the talented engineers who created the formidable weapon ... The author created the best installation, and the evil schemers cut it down? No? Then where does the hysterical note come from? In addition, when firing an approaching rocket, "lump-sum" does not matter. She will inevitably enter the cloud flying towards her.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 17 January 2016 17: 45 New
              +1
              the problem is that the cloud (i.e. the jet actually) is also flying along the ballistic trajectory. and it’s not infinite: a smoke break queue with a nap (cooling / adjustment) is a queue. In a specific unit of time, pl. equal to the diameter of the projectile, not a cloud 10m in diameter. And the rocket, even subsonic, passes 300m every second. here it is necessary that the shells come exactly to the lead point, verified with the help of the radar and the LMS in general - i.e. accuracy
          2. Philip Staros
            Philip Staros 28 September 2016 00: 46 New
            0
            A line of one hundred rounds - about 0,6 seconds (well, so, in Elsie’s head to figure it out). The rocket will go 200 meters, roughly. But then it goes on her forehead. And let the distance be one and a half kilometers.
            So here. If it goes on the forehead, then the displacement relative to the gun is a couple of meters maximum. And the "cloud" is quite a fraction.
            If the fire is conducted from the side (the rocket goes to the ship), then the target’s area increases severalfold ... But preemption and other things still drive the line into the "cloud".
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 18 January 2016 18: 45 New
          0
          Quote: sniper
          The very tone of the article is very unpleasant, on the verge of personal insults,

          Everyone perceives in his own way. It’s like a sign on the pillar “Do not fit will kill!”. Most will understand and appreciate, but still, someone will be outraged - "Are they holding me for a fool?" smile
  5. yuriy55
    yuriy55 17 January 2016 06: 24 New
    17
    Only successes in re-equipping our country can push for writing articles of this nature. And what are we entitled to do, and why not?
    We have the right to “doubt” the effectiveness of the design features of our warships, but this does not give us reason to decide what is convenient and what is useful ... We are users of the site, not engineers and designers.

    We have already met in the press and the media of various friends who weren’t our friends about “roaring cows”, “caliber falling anywhere”, non-existent PAK FA, which broke during the “Armata” Victory Parade ... With all due respect: “ Keep writing, the star-striped flag is in your hands ... "
    1. papik09
      papik09 17 January 2016 07: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: yuriy55
      "Keep on writing, a star-striped flag in your hands ..."

      ... drum on the neck and forward and with the song !!!
  6. Astra55
    Astra55 17 January 2016 07: 12 New
    +2
    The article is clearly not for a wide readership. I read it, and there is nothing to argue. Everything on the shelves, everything is explained in special terms, and I want to wrap myself in a sheet and crawl crawling to the nearest cemetery, so as not to cause panic.
    Specialist. on ship armament, of course, I could scientifically argue with the author, but I'm not special. in this case, and the article is clearly provocative.
    And in this case, there is only one way out, ask the author a dumb question, and let him play in my field:
    And why do you need his guns on ships in the twenty-first century? Well, tell me the dark teenager in simple words.
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 17 January 2016 08: 42 New
      +2
      This is yes.
      Next in line are lasers and railguns ....
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 17 January 2016 19: 50 New
        +1
        In ten years they will be brought to the ideal.
  7. cap
    cap 17 January 2016 07: 15 New
    +2
    I read the article. I got an educational program in degrees, angles, minutes. We must forward the fleet command of Russia directly. Since the conclusion is competent and the conclusions are clearly not addressed to the masses.
    It would be necessary to add to fiber optics, nanotechnology. Chubais will seize with pleasure. laughing
  8. Hammer
    Hammer 17 January 2016 07: 29 New
    +7
    Theoretical shipbuilders have gone ...
    While reading, I remembered the article where the affctor considered the solutions for installing on a railgun armature with air defense systems "like in the Top." Comments, as usual, are superfluous.
    And about the fact that the dagger is worse than the AK-630, my jaw simply dropped. If an enemy plane or missile was allowed 2-3 km from the frigate, that is, to the range of destruction of quick-firing guns, then someone is doing something wrong on the ship.
  9. letinant
    letinant 17 January 2016 07: 34 New
    19
    No article, the author is an ignoramus, unless he proves otherwise (military specialty, time in office). Some issues are controversial about the Caspian flotilla. These ships will operate there under the cover of aviation and air defense weapons there to support the pants, but the radar is crucial to see the enemy earlier, and call a couple of whistles and direct them to contact. The same conversation is about bigger ships, the article from the Russian side presents corvettes, small missile ships, missile and artillery boats. Guess how far they go from the coast? Yes, in general, ships always work in conjunction (group, flotilla, fleet, etc.). For analysis, it is necessary to take into account all the characteristics of the theater of operations, and this is verbal n .... in the article. About ZRAK, all countries that are trying to create, who have already created ZRAK. The American VOLCANO integrates with the SAM standard, they stand on the ship in different places and the combat post is ONE! Speaking of age, how old is the VOLCANO? About INVISIBLE, look carefully as the author asks for a photograph of the ship, and preferably on its diagram. And you will see that due to the unsuccessful installation of this gun, the fire sector is small, the declination angle is high and does not make it possible to fire underboard. Therefore, my conclusion is that a person has seen enough of American films and now thinks that one artillery boat will pass three oceans to America, in the way destroy 250-300 aircraft and the same amount of anti-ship missiles, and at the end of the way all the enemy’s ships will be drowned by the goalkeeper. RAVE!!!
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 17 January 2016 11: 38 New
      0
      Quote: letinant
      the author is a layman, unless he proves otherwise

      And what should he prove, at the very beginning he admitted that
      the author, as a private, uninformed person who uses only open sources of information, exaggerates everything and, trying to earn cheap credibility of a superficial naval expert, uses gnarly, unsubstantiated phrases

      A lot of pictures and terms that are incomprehensible to the uninitiated and all sorts of "specialists" at the dance.
    2. PPD
      PPD 17 January 2016 11: 39 New
      +2
      On Invincible, Volcanoes were put up to the heap.
      And so, the chef has lost. The main leitmotif of the article.
  10. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 17 January 2016 07: 42 New
    17
    The author raves in reality. The accuracy of the sniper rifle (very good) is 1 arcminute, which is 0.3 m Rad! The author requires accuracy from a quick-fire anti-aircraft gun - six times higher! What is this for? Does he have sighting systems capable of pointing guns at a fast-moving target with similar accuracy? And most importantly, why then rate of fire? In one shot, from a swinging deck, at a fast-flying maneuvering target - like a squirrel in the eye ...
  11. askold
    askold 17 January 2016 08: 05 New
    +8
    I understood from the article that at present the reincarnation of the events of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 took place in the Russian Navy, and everything goes to Tsushima ... Only then, only two range finders Barra and Struda, located in the fore and aft parts of the ship, were put on the ships two rangefinding posts, (by the way, the assertion that there were more of them on Japanese ships was nothing more than a myth), and now one Pennant radar for several AK-630s. All the efforts of our designers to correct the situation led them to a dead end branch of development. That is, instead of the motto - “Give each trunk a radar !!!”, ours created a kind of Krylov’s fable “Swan, Cancer and Pike”, also arranged everything as crooked and clumsy again as in another fable, "... and you’re friends, don’t sit down, you’re not good at musicians. "
    However, I want to remind you that the affector needs a different fable ...
    "The monkey has become weak with old eyes;
    And at people she heard,
    That this evil is not yet so big a hand;
    It’s only worth getting glasses ... ",
    well, we won’t bother with the further continuation of such a fascinating plot, I’ll add only morality:
    "Unfortunately, it happens with people:
    No matter how useful the thing is, the prices without knowing it,
    The ignoramus about her is good at everything;
    And if the ignorant know better,
    So he also drives her "
    I apologize if I answered rudely.
  12. Amurets
    Amurets 17 January 2016 08: 20 New
    +1
    Article-frank nonsense! Yes, there were problems with air defense of ships during the Second World War. This can be read in the memoirs of our war veterans. But after Khrushchev left, the development of new weapons for ships began, although the ban on the development of guns with a caliber above 130mm still applies .Here we are talking about near-range guns. Any medium and large caliber anti-aircraft projectile gave a cone of fragments towards the target. What’s the point of this? And besides, the line of shells should have a cone-shaped dispersion, since the small-caliber shell do not give a sufficient number of fragments.
  13. Morf
    Morf 17 January 2016 08: 24 New
    +5
    amateur opinion:
    to the author +, sometimes the discussion to the article goes as a very good addition
  14. DMM2006
    DMM2006 17 January 2016 08: 26 New
    +9
    I am sincerely sorry that such articles generally appear. For people more or less literate, written is nothing more than nonsense and juggling facts. But after all, this article will be read by people who do not have special knowledge in this area. As a result, part of the “teenagers” will begin, but rather continue to form an opinion on the “nullity” of our armed forces. But you have to admit that until recently, this opinion unfortunately prevailed. As the authors of the part of the comments correctly pointed out, such articles are not a warning about a possible repetition of the script on 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX in a new format, but only a game against the "Tang" customers.
    PS: most of all I was amused by the active criticism of the location of the blocks of trunks of our ZAK. Comparison with a double-barreled shotgun is just "strong." I would like to see the bear that will be shot at from such a gun! After all, it should be borne in mind that for RCC, hitting any of several thousand ZAK shells flying at it is “deadly”. Now imagine a poor Bear who was shot from a rifle creating a continuous zone of destruction of at least 1 square meter. and spaced horizontally. It’s a pity because the cattle is what remains of it!
    And believe me, with any anti-ship missiles, our ZAKs will do the same, including the notorious "hypersonic" cruise missiles that actively threaten the subjects of the BARAK monkey, but which, typically no one saw them, the results of combat use are not known to anyone, but they are often and often heard about them.
  15. Hammer
    Hammer 17 January 2016 08: 47 New
    +5
    note.
    This corvette 20380 is "guarding"



    It can be seen in the bow there is a "dagger" so hated by the author, but it does not have a missile component and is equipped with a slot antenna, that is, according to the author, the reaction time will be normal. Range of 3-5 km.



    And this is the “Intelligent” undersound replaced by a redoubt complex with a range of action depending on modifications from 40 to 150 km. According to the author, it is much more necessary to stick instead of the sight of redoubts and other AK-630 with a range of 4 km. Logics. By the way, all 20380 projects have one AK-630 on each side.

    1. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 17 January 2016 12: 46 New
      +1
      Everything would be fine, but only 150 km, on paper, in reality, this crap shoots somehow at 15 km, with pre-detection from ARTILLERY radar ...

      For Furke is not able to provide a normal missile defense system for air defense systems.
  16. Hammer
    Hammer 17 January 2016 09: 07 New
    11

    But the destroyer type arly burke "USS DDG-71" As you can see in the bow and stern are one volcano.


    But the same arly burke is only newer than "USS DDG-112" volcanoes were completely removed and as the English says. Wikipedia is replaced by a single 25mm Bushmaster and one Sea Sparrow air defense system (analogue of a redoubt).
    The Americans, that they do not know that without ZAK the ship does not live? It turns out their destroyer does not meet modern requirements, right?
    And the last, having crossed out all the nonsense that the author painted here, one can agree with only one, with the need to strengthen the nose with a compact ZAK, in case the enemy plane or missile can miraculously come up 1-2 km towards the frigate’s nose, although It will be much more effective to attack aboard. How justified it is to rebuild the entire Russian fleet is known only to the author.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 17 January 2016 09: 36 New
      +2
      aft volcano

      but what, attack of RCC from the nose is excluded? moreover, modern missiles launch in the calculation of an attack from the least protected angles. not to mention the attack from different directions of two or more missiles
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 17 January 2016 10: 07 New
        +2
        In their nose they have an 5 inch with a UAS.

        In general, now the leading world fleets are abandoning ZAK, or rather, making their revision.

        New ships have:
        1-2 anti-piracy module, with 12,7 browning or 20-25-30mmm gun. Shooting on the optical (+ TPV) channel remotely.
        old MZA systems are cut as outdated. In their place put ROME-116 or its semblance, copies or your vision (Barack-8).

        It is believed that MZA, even against missiles of the previous generation (Exoset, C-802 / 3 / 5, Otomat, Harpoon), will be extremely ineffective. But lightweight rocket systems, will give the desired efficiency for the shot. Especially if you plant the MSA and do not lower the channel of the main air defense system.
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 17 January 2016 16: 07 New
          +1
          The Falkland conflict clearly revealed one of the shortcomings of the British destroyers - the lack of a ZAK, due to budget cuts. In the future, certain organizational conclusions were made and the ships received these systems.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 17 January 2016 12: 02 New
      +8
      "the volcanoes were completely cleaned up and as the English wikipedia says, replaced by
      one side 25mm "Bushmaster" and air defense systems Sea Sparrow (analogue redoubt) "////

      And in vain, in my opinion. The attack may be in front, especially
      if the adversary knows that there is no anti-aircraft gun in front.
      We must be able to defend ourselves against the Kyrgyz Republic and high-speed boats on board, and attacks
      aircraft with bow and stern.
      The article is not so stupid. In the years 50-60, American destroyers were
      literally studded with anti-aircraft guns in "three layers", like hedgehogs.
      And suddenly they are again almost completely removed.
      In some narrow Strait of Hormuz, the Iranians will be thrown against the destroyer
      all that is: boats, missiles, and some biplanes with bombs -
      something breaks through - anti-aircraft guns and missiles may not be enough.
      1. letinant
        letinant 17 January 2016 12: 29 New
        0
        Ahead is a universal weapon in which ammunition a shell with a remote fuse.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 17 January 2016 22: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And in vain, in my opinion. The attack may be in front, especially
        if the adversary knows that there is no anti-aircraft gun in front.
        We must be able to defend ourselves against the Kyrgyz Republic and high-speed boats on board, and attacks
        aircraft with bow and stern.

        I read the comments ... it’s debatable a lot both in the article and in the posts. But I had a question ... Do corvettes or frigates walk one at a time? I mean, the accuracy of the volley will provide not one ship, but several, in order to bring down that same RCC or Kr.
        What, excuse me for 5 minutes? Ships do not go alone and, accordingly, covering and defense will be collective.
        Best regards hi
      3. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 18 January 2016 15: 51 New
        0
        Sorry, but this is nonsense, although just chat with the naval ...
  17. surrozh
    surrozh 17 January 2016 09: 23 New
    0
    The discussion is much more interesting than the article itself. And the article is somehow provocative, apparently the author wants to learn something new from the members of the forum.
  18. Yak-3P
    Yak-3P 17 January 2016 09: 44 New
    0
    This is not the author Serdyukov ?? not ... but similar ..
  19. LvKiller
    LvKiller 17 January 2016 09: 50 New
    0
    I must admit that there is still a problem: the daughters of Crimean officers have some strange names - John, Sean, Eli, Slava ... Every joke has a fraction of a joke. They smell backwards that soon for them the shit to shit on everything and everything will end here and scream - "We will all die!", And, damn it, they are right - they will die.
  20. donavi49
    donavi49 17 January 2016 10: 26 New
    +3
    The author of the article interestingly replaces the examples of world powers.

    The aircraft carrier from the example was built in 70's under the corresponding threats (P-15M + P-35 + P-120). Today, everyone can purchase an aircraft carrier from the picture by buying a pan / pan Tefal Made in Turkey.

    The new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth will have 2 MHA points on board + 2 points of anti-piracy blocks on board + if they save money, the project will include 6 RIM-116 blocks.

    The Chinese 051 is also for the PLA an obsolete ship. The 051 series is closed, and now the fourth generation of the 052 series is already being produced. Moreover, with a combined near circuit.
  21. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 17 January 2016 10: 54 New
    0
    He ceased to take the article too seriously when a person communicating with specialists called the kamikaze fireman speaking in the subject of ships.
  22. Yarik
    Yarik 17 January 2016 11: 01 New
    +2
    Cap.Morgan RU Today, 08:37 ↑ New
    I agree that the article is controversial.
    Only what does the State Department. Intrigue in our defense industry have always been. Given the tragic events of the 90s, it is not surprising that industry and military science have not yet recovered at the proper level.

    I remember that at one time A. Khraptovich expressed thoughts on this subject: “System” with all the consequences ... But he, exactly, is a naval specialist.
  23. xomaNN
    xomaNN 17 January 2016 11: 07 New
    +5
    The author keenly "slashed" at the designers of marine SPRAK and customers from the Russian Navy at the same time. It is unlikely that we will hear any comments from them here. It’s good that they just don’t dismiss such “hairpins” and think about whether there is a rational in these considerations? soldier
  24. killganoff
    killganoff 17 January 2016 11: 16 New
    +4
    I fully agree with the author! And the topic of weak air defense / missile defense of the latest domestic ships was discussed at the TTZ and OCD stage, but as we see, they did not heed the recommendations of knowledgeable people.
    In the army, as in the days of Sir Serdyukov, “effective” managers rule.
  25. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 17 January 2016 11: 31 New
    -4
    Yes, just C ... KA author ... get surrounded by the Seaman, they will tell you the truth .. yes and show .. maybe .. if they behave well
  26. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 17 January 2016 11: 46 New
    +1
    The article focuses on the means of protection of the combat system (ship). Of course, this is an important aspect. But self-preservation cannot be the purpose and purpose of a combat system. The main thing is to have time to complete the assigned task, which is carried out by means of attack. Therefore, the balance between defense and attack is important. You can destroy any system with a massive blow of a variety of weapons.
  27. Old26
    Old26 17 January 2016 12: 20 New
    +3
    I’ll try to express my opinion, though the opinion of the layman in this matter is true. The article is controversial, but does not agree, which is clearly provocative. Of course, the article is the personal opinion of the writer, as in principle all other articles. Because in order to understand - you need to be a professional.
    Of course, there was always intrigue in our defense industry, and not always the best was accepted into service. Sometimes "proximity to the body" was paramount.

    Quote: Sura
    Not controversial, but clearly provocative, which is why the State Department is aimed at our youth, to raise doubt. Do you need to describe the technology of manipulating consciousness?

    Sometimes raising doubt is the best option. This gives an impetus to the young man and he will begin to understand. Significantly worse when it is regularly cleaned by brains with cheer-patriotic slogans, such as "we will tear all." Here he no longer thinks, and does not try to think. They think for him, but he KNOWS

    And the questions raised in the article - there is a place to be. Take even the same "Buyan-M". Good ship for the river and closed seas (such as the Caspian). Especially when there is no worthy opponent. But on the Black Sea (or as they generally offer in the ocean) - it’s not even a “five-minute ship”. With an almost complete absence of air defense. In short, IMHO, the article is controversial, but it makes you think
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 17 January 2016 14: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      And the questions raised in the article - there is a place to be.

      Volodya hello! If my PM didn’t pass congratulations, then I immediately congratulate you in bulk on all the January holidays. Now on the topic. Agreement on the joint withdrawal of troops, but boats on the Amur really need such weapons, no doubt. I don’t say that they don’t, but the status of the KAF as border guards limits the armament of ships. On Amur, it has its own specifics, as well as throughout the Russian-Chinese border. Yes! your personalities reach me.
  28. Cord
    Cord 17 January 2016 12: 22 New
    +1
    This "wise guy" just called all those involved in the design, creation, testing of the weapon itself and the ships on which it is installed. Both the designer are stupid and military idiots. It would be interesting to know where this "expert" works, what he invented, what he built? If he is so smart, then why doesn't anyone know him?
    I don’t understand why this article was posted on the site. Yes, there are articles that criticize the flaws and shortcomings in the case, and they should be, but there the criticism is confirmed not only by facts, but by life - exploitation and working on errors (modernization). Which is better we have something with “friends.” In the article, the question was posed simply: the first part is a simple pouring of slop on everyone and everything, the second half of the article is a revelation: there is an ideal, “NATO”, and we must be equal to them.
    I have only one opinion about this "reading matter" - the paid order to "liberal". And the publication on the site is a kind of provocation. How will the stuffing go, how will readers react, what percentage of people on the site will positively evaluate this article? This is the element of the information war - throwing an empty article or provocations, assessing the situation, adjusting the information provided, and so on in a circle until the desired result is achieved.
  29. Tektor
    Tektor 17 January 2016 12: 35 New
    +2
    It is stated very authoritatively, but in a timely manner? If we start comparative tests now, what definitely needs to be done, and at the same time suspend work on ships with the inevitable subsequent delay in their acceptance into service, then who will benefit from this? KMK, the best solution would be to install a 57-caliber Baikal module with guided artillery shells with an ammunition load of at least 200 pieces that allow a burst of 3 UAS to bring down a target at a distance of up to 8 km with a probability of 0,7. It is incomparably better with any ZAK and ZRAK of the past.!. UAS is actually a rocket without an engine, flying by inertia. Missiles from the Shell are their complete analogy (difference in range: there is a minimum of 1500 m and a maximum of more than 20 (35?) Km, only more expensive and less ammunition. We must compare under the same conditions. Although the best means of air defense for the ship today - TOR-M2M: range - up to 16 km, minimum height above the underlying water surface - less than 5 m with a probability of intercepting one SAM; more than 0,9, so they would have to be installed, and also modules from Chrysanthemums for dismantling at short distances (with small measures - including) and on coastal targets in the line of sight (optically and radar).
  30. kitamo
    kitamo 17 January 2016 12: 35 New
    +2
    I’m not a major specialist, but nevertheless I graduated from the KVVMU rocket-artillery faculty and I can say with confidence that the article was sucked from my finger ... the phrase was especially killed:
    In a word, for every 1000 shots fired from the ZAK, in the midsection (the largest cross-section of the body moving in water or air) RCC with an area of ​​0,1 square meters will get no more than 4 shells.


    taking into account that the maximum queue length is 400 rounds, then one or two guaranteed (according to the author’s calculations) hits of 30mm high-explosive shells in any anti-ship missile is more than enough to destroy it ...

    everything else in the article in the same vein, only, perhaps, less obvious delusional ...
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 17 January 2016 13: 09 New
      +3
      If you increase the accuracy by three times, it turns out that to defeat, instead of a line of 400 shots and 6 seconds, you need 150 shots and two seconds, after which the fire is transferred to the next target. It turns out that the machine has time to fire and hit two targets instead of one, if the launch was volley it is important. Well, the BC is not infinite, shells also need to be saved.
    2. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 17 January 2016 16: 11 New
      0
      Correct, the maximum length of the line AK-630-800 shells.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 17 January 2016 16: 48 New
        -1
        after which he goes to smoke
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 18 January 2016 01: 26 New
          0
          In the tape-2000 rounds, there are also replaceable tapes-for 2000 and 1000 rounds
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 January 2016 04: 28 New
            0
            Well, yes, but where is shortness of breath (barrel cooling) after such a turn?
            1. Dimon19661
              Dimon19661 18 January 2016 05: 44 New
              0
              I repeat once again, there are three shooting modes — a short burst — 200 rounds, a long — 800 rounds, an automatic machine — how much you press the pedal — and so many crashes. The barrels are cooled with an aqueous solution of ethylene glycol, for which there is appropriate equipment in the barbet (under the gun).
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 January 2016 09: 56 New
                0
                I repeat once again: you have to smoke after each turn, and the longer it is, the longer the smoke break (cooling)
                1. Dimon19661
                  Dimon19661 18 January 2016 15: 02 New
                  0
                  Sorry, but you don’t need to smoke, you need to reload the tape
  31. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 17 January 2016 12: 57 New
    +2
    The fact that rockets and guns should be on different installations is completely obvious. "Part-time" came from the ground forces, where either so, or at the right time, it turns out that the car with missiles in point A, and the car with guns in point B and the entire air defense calculation system goes on p .. de. On the ship, such a situation is impossible, here the missiles are always in place, and the guns in their place, they will not go anywhere, and the task of the designers is to correctly determine these very places.
    The author has the only complaint about the IAC from the Caspian Sea, missiles were launched by RTOs, the boat is slightly different in appearance and armament, including and the MZA installation there is different.
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 17 January 2016 16: 43 New
      +1
      mmm ... But the problem is not rubber ship how to solve? After all, this is only due to the increase in size making it a much more convenient target due to the capture of the lesion area.
  32. sevtrash
    sevtrash 17 January 2016 13: 07 New
    +2
    It is a pity that the author did not find / did not present the comparative effectiveness of the Palm / Broads / Falanks / Centurion / Goalkeeper, etc., that is, the probability of hitting different targets. Surely such an analysis exists, based both on the characteristics and tests of the complexes. All other assumptions, but from the author’s side, seem quite logical, although not all may be.
  33. podgornovea
    podgornovea 17 January 2016 13: 22 New
    +3
    "In a short time (no more than 5-7 years) to design and adopt a completely new naval anti-aircraft artillery system with unique combat characteristics, namely:
    - instantaneous response (no more than 0,1-0,3 seconds) to the appearance and shelling of emerging naval targets threatening a combat surface ship;
    - accuracy of firing of anti-aircraft guns with a KVO no more than 0,05 mrad. "


    After 5-7 years in the west, a laser self-defense weapon from anti-ship missiles can go into production, is now being rolled in. The time from development to implementation is now rapidly declining.
    Does the author offer forward to the past?
    ZAK with reaction from detection to shelling 0,1-03 sec! ??
    What is it like? RCC will fly directly to ZAK, and it will be sent directly to RCC?
    0,05 mRad? "AK-630M 4,0-4,28 mRad. This means that at a range of 1500 m, the actual random projectile spread from the aiming point will be from 4 to 4,28 m"
    That is, to reduce the QUO in 100 times? scatter at a range of 1500m 5 centimeters?
    From a rotating block of trunks?

    Herbert Wells smokes nervously on the sidelines (and it seems like a completely different weed :).
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 17 January 2016 16: 14 New
      +1
      And by the way, on ships there is no such unit of measure-mRad. The military use -T.D.
      What does it mean-thousandth (360 degrees = 6000 td)
  34. Besmaster
    Besmaster 17 January 2016 13: 26 New
    +2
    It is an adequate article. The author definitely goes too far with the fact that our ships are "five-minute", but there is a problem of the correct arrangement of systems on the ships. And the AK-630M needs to be improved. However, no one can say what is now being designed in our design bureaus. Or it can say, but it will not. Who knows what systems will be installed on the future destroyer and modernized Peter the Great. So the author should not panic.
    But most commentators in vain kick the author’s feet. My dear, you just have nothing to read, you scare all inquisitive minds. Do not agree with the article, and write, just do not forget the arguments. And then some just throw a couple of kakakhs at the author and the comment ends on this. Maybe they don’t even read the article to the end. Respect the work of people and do not see spies from Uncle Sam everywhere. Although they certainly are, there are simply not many and not in every corner.
  35. lopvlad
    lopvlad 17 January 2016 14: 11 New
    -2
    it seems appropriate to carry out a set of the following urgent measures:

    the most immediate action is to dismiss or shoot alarmists. I especially liked the author’s thoughts “they say that weapons are only tested for ships on the ground” which does not correspond to reality. Weapons for ships are tested both on land and at sea (after installation on the ship before transfer this ship to the fleet).
    And for the author I’ll say that we are still learning how to work out the takeoff and landing of aircraft on the deck of an aircraft carrier on the ground at the NITKA complex, and then after that we successfully land on the deck of a real aircraft carrier.
  36. Hydrograph
    Hydrograph 17 January 2016 14: 42 New
    -2
    The article is correct! The death of MRC Monsoon in 1987 is confirmed, at that time a modern ship (included in the 1982 fleet) and the anti-ship missiles were not shot down. Since then, nothing special has changed in the artillery of the last chance. That on Monsoon there was a 2x57 mm AK-725, and the OSA, and then they began to put the AK 630 on this project, I know I do not have to write in the comments about this. AK 630 on the "smart" power but so on the 1155 project, and on the "Varyag".
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 17 January 2016 16: 16 New
      +1
      The gun does not change — the control station changes — and this is much more important.
  37. Old26
    Old26 17 January 2016 15: 19 New
    +1
    Quote: Amurets
    Volodya hello! If my PM didn’t pass congratulations, then I immediately congratulate you in bulk on all the January holidays. Now on the topic. Agreement on the joint withdrawal of troops, but boats on the Amur really need such weapons, no doubt. I don’t say that they don’t, but the status of the KAF as border guards limits the armament of ships. On Amur, it has its own specifics, as well as throughout the Russian-Chinese border. Yes! your personalities reach me.

    Nikolay! Lichki went through everything, but anyway, thanks for the congratulations.
    The Amur Flotilla is a separate "song". KVF - there, too, air defense systems are still not the primary weapon. But in the open seas. But anyway, I read both the article and the comments with interest ....
  38. Al iv
    Al iv 17 January 2016 15: 29 New
    +3
    After reading the article, I concluded that everything is good in NATO, but it will be even better, but everything is bad with us, and it will be even worse; the Chinese have no, no, no. The author’s hatred of Russia is striking under the guise of pseudo-patriotism.
  39. Abrash
    Abrash 17 January 2016 17: 01 New
    +2
    The article is strikingly reminiscent of the presentation of material in the 90s, when, for example, our tanks and their armor and dynamic defense were criticized, and praising abrams with “miracle shells” piercing through the dynamic defense and main armor into the T-90's forehead from 2 km! Rave!
  40. gladcu2
    gladcu2 17 January 2016 17: 12 New
    0
    The author is undoubtedly right, weapons of protection are needed.

    But. The development of these weapons is not only the mechanics of the gun, Gryazev-Shipunov, which, in my opinion, is the peak of perfection but primarily the concept. Ways, layout, tactics, ammunition.

    A radar mounted directly near the aiming line is obvious nonsense. Enough reliable sensor and orientation system. Radars must be taken out at a distance. To the exclusion of factors of influence from firing from the anti-aircraft system. And also to create a three-dimensional spatial model of aiming with the institution.

    Well, obviously, the ammunition should self-detonate near the target, the installation of this three-dimensional model embedded in the fuse. Creating a cloud of damaging elements. A direct hit is good, but sure, better.

    Therefore, the conversation must be transferred to the concept. And in this case, the work must be shifted to software. Which is less financially dependent. Cheaper.
    1. GregorT
      GregorT 17 January 2016 17: 27 New
      0
      The author of the article is one of the best officers and scientists of military unit 73790, liquidated in 1997. Do not doubt his decency and readiness to give his life for Russia! No need to pass on to personalities and insults! Sincerely, GregorT.
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 17 January 2016 17: 42 New
        +3
        What is the title of such a scientist officer ??? And the fact that the article has a lot of mistakes and inaccuracies + poor idea of ​​the work of ship's air defense, how is it?
        1. GregorT
          GregorT 17 January 2016 19: 15 New
          +2
          When registering on the site, I indicated two years of “clean” water. I spent about 5 years in the navy, but I am not a naval officer. So is the author, he is a system analyst, senior scientific researcher, a person with active life position. If he’s wrong, prove it to him with numbers, calculations, arguments, but not empty, but sonorous PHRASES, without reservation and insults! I will be glad if the author is wrong! But this should be proved by experts !!! GregorT.
      2. lazma3
        lazma3 17 January 2016 20: 55 New
        -1
        I’m very doubtful about his decency. A respectable citizen who loves his country will never shit his army, and if he were really one of the best scientists, he would have found use even after the liquidation of the unit. , offended by the power of a former officer.
        1. looker-on
          looker-on 19 January 2016 09: 51 New
          +1
          Sorry, but to quote from the article, please, the place where the author pours shit on his country. Re-read, I do not see.
  41. fagot-z
    fagot-z 17 January 2016 17: 18 New
    +1
    How it is possible to compare ships of a completely different class, in general, is not clear. (Only for this one minus. Etozh all the same as a motorcycle with a truck.
    In addition, modern warships are now really all, one might say, one-time. 5 minutes during a modern battle is not a bad result.)
  42. fisherman2
    fisherman2 17 January 2016 17: 54 New
    0
    Two complexes on one turret are the best invention. If one fails, the chances are greater.
  43. Jan2016
    Jan2016 17 January 2016 17: 59 New
    0
    I’ll put in my two pennies. I hope this doesn’t bother anyone. At one time, as a teenager, he attended a naval parade with demonstrative firing with a relative, a retired sailor at the time, a captain of the 1st rank. After the demonstrative downing of an air target. I became interested and what will happen in the event of a real war? To that he received an answer in the event of a real big war with Nata. All sailors are suicide bombers ... Why? Well, you see now, if not with a nuclear bomb then a rocket in the bay, ships will be hit, it is always the first target in case of an attack. In the open sea, the ocean in a direct collision with a rocket launched by a ship of the RCC missile, it is almost impossible to bring down. This exercise demonstrates a successful downing. And in combat conditions it will be completely different. There is only one chance or we are his first or they are us. And he said that our RCC are the best in the world! In general, whoever strikes first will win. And in the case of a ship’s defeat in the sea or ocean far from the coast, and if there are no other ships nearby, the same mass grave is at the bottom of the sea. A wreath is on the waves. Then I asked, why did you go then to the sailors? Well, you know, the form is beautiful! How do you go ashore all your girls. First a cadet, and then an officer as soon as he received a dagger. And then it is necessary that someone defends their homeland!
  44. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 17 January 2016 18: 00 New
    +2
    Quote: Tlauicol
    in order for the shells to fly "in the cloud", a volley of, say, 100 shells is needed. In AK 630, they still fly in a “chain” with a spread of tens of meters to max. the distance. This is not a shotgun. Those. in each unit of time, huge areas of this "scatter" turn out to be unaffected. Plus the firing line and the aiming line do not coincide by 10 meters. Accuracy ZRAK needs a lot, and not just rate of fire

    For accurate firing, the VIMPEL MP-123 control station has counting devices (device-4), and it’s absolutely purple at what distance the guns are from device 1 (antenna). From time to time, experts configure all station systems, which ensures a high probability of hitting .On ships of the first rank, as a rule, firing is carried out immediately with two guns, the rate of fire switch (this parameter is set) is usually at 3000v / m. The station operator (there are 3 of them) after the first sighting turn can make an amendment, and then The gunnery for all gunners can be different, but usually I shot-the first sighting on the machine-50-60 rounds, then short -200. This is usually enough for me. The people on the forum have absolutely no idea how modern gunners fire and control systems — most of them are modern combat — something like Tsushima. Believe me, it’s not at all like that — you don’t even hear your cannon — which you control, you don’t sit in the tower — you are deep in the bowels of the ship. especially work will accelerate oil is where the fun is))
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 17 January 2016 18: 11 New
      -1
      On Monsoon was also the Pennant MP-123. At the same time, target speed, altitude, distance, flight direction, and even launch time were known.
      If it’s not a secret, for what purpose they fired and with what parameters (altitude / speed / range)? hi
  45. fisherman2
    fisherman2 17 January 2016 18: 20 New
    0
    The fewer secret military developments we see on the ships of Russia. The westerners sleep more soundly and they are frightened by horror stories about small boats controlling the whole world. BUT secrets are not bahvalya, they have. For many, Russia has a lot of things, a tiretoria, wealth in the bowels, a brain, so secret developments are not discussed.
  46. acetophenon
    acetophenon 17 January 2016 18: 59 New
    0
    Competent specialists, of course, are right, we do not have access, therefore - figs to us, and not a check of opportunities.
    But does the Harpoon anti-ship missile, or the LRASM coming to replace it, do they have access?
  47. Vladimir Postnikov
    Vladimir Postnikov 17 January 2016 19: 23 New
    +3
    The article is interesting. It touches on interesting topics that are not related to specific designs, but to criticism of existing designs, and the perception of new ideas.
    Very difficult questions.
    Regarding the article:
    The author in the article analyzes the effectiveness of ZAK and ZRAK. The article ends with recommendations by the author what needs to be done. In general, the article is built correctly.
    The analysis of the author can and should be criticized by specialists. His recommendations, too, can and should be criticized by specialists.
    Here is one of the problems. And who are the judges?
    As a “judge” here, in some comments, frank bums were noted. Fingers spread out and tear the vest on the chest. Misery, and nothing more. Such open anonymous forums are a fertile place for breeding mold.
    The role of a judge can be tried on by employees of the ZAK and ZRAK producers criticized by the author. Alas, this is their daily bread. They will not spare the belly and will cling to every mistake, typo, and reservation to denigrate criticism of their products. Alas, this is a common thing in science, to say nothing of modern joint-stock companies, in which the shareholder is at the forefront, and not the defense capability of the state.
    In a word - a useful article.
    And as for the judges, I recommend reading the "History of the creation of shock underwater drones in Russia."
    http://vladimir37.livejournal.com/41029.html
  48. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 17 January 2016 19: 32 New
    +1
    I read "diagonally." A rare vyser of a militant amateur.
    There’s no time to sort it all out. Now all the time is busy with something different from forum seats.
    Nevertheless, I posted it on my tape in the FB. Let your friends laugh. )))
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. lazma3
      lazma3 17 January 2016 20: 56 New
      -1
      I agree with you on everything100.
  49. lazma3
    lazma3 17 January 2016 20: 47 New
    -1
    This author is another "expert" whose task is to rude everything Russian. He is like that pessimist who proves that a soft organ is better than a hard one. I was on the "Guardian" and I know about its weapons not from open sources, like this scribbler, but from the mouth of a person who was directly responsible for his weapons. Believe that the ships of this project are very formidable weapons. And the weapons installed on it meet all modern requirements. And the author is better to write about the US Navy. Judging by the article, he likes them more.
  50. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 17 January 2016 20: 57 New
    +2
    I'm certainly not a strategist or designer. But I worked in shipbuilding for about 15 years. Perhaps I will also return to this branch of the national economy. Our factory produced PKSRs underwater hovercraft and hovercraft. I do not think that our designers are such as to not understand the problems identified above. And even more so foreign customers who purchase our vessels.